By Jeff Foust on 2010 February 18 at 1:19 am ET A conversation between the president (and some schoolchildren) in the White House and astronauts on the International Space Station isn’t the ideal forum for discussing space policy. But President Obama did make some brief references to the agency’s new direction in Wednesday’s call to the ISS crew, the first things resembling a public comment by the president on this change in policy since its unveiling at the beginning of the month. From the official transcript:
And so we just wanted to let you know that the amazing work that’s being done on the International Space Station not only by our American astronauts but also our colleagues from Japan and Russia is just a testimony to the human ingenuity; a testimony to extraordinary skill and courage that you guys bring to bear; and is also a testimony to why continued space exploration is so important, and is part of the reason why my commitment to NASA is unwavering.
But instead of me doing all the talking, I wanted you guys to maybe let us know what this new Tranquility Module will help you accomplish. One of the things that we’ve done with our NASA “Vision for the Future” is to extend the life of our participation in the Space Station.
This is the first reference I recall seeing the agency’s new direction called the “Vision for the Future” as its proper name. The first impression is something, well, bland and almost redundant: shouldn’t your vision be about the future?
A little later, after some comments by ISS astronaut T.J. Creamer about research being performed on the ISS, Obama also discussed the technology R&D efforts in the budget proposal—as well as a particular planet:
Well, some of the things that you talked about are in line with where we want to see NASA going increasingly: What are those transformational technologies that would allow us to potentially see space travel of longer durations? If we want to get to Mars, if we want to get beyond that, what kinds of technologies are going to be necessary in order for us to make sure that folks can get there in one piece and get back in one piece and that — the kinds of fuels that we use and the technologies we use are going to facilitate something that is actually feasible? And we’re very excited about the possibilities of putting more research dollars into some of these transformational technologies.
The video of the event is available on the White House web site.
By Jeff Foust on 2010 February 17 at 6:38 pm ET One of the ongoing debates about the White House’s new plan for NASA is whether the agency’s human spaceflight plans be focused on going to specific destinations (Moon, Mars, etc.), often by a certain deadline, or instead developing the capabilities and infrastructure needed for future exploration without a specific destination or schedule in mind. The new plan right now is squarely in the latter category: there’s funding for commercial crew development, heavy-lift launch vehicle technology development, and other technology R&D, all without (for now) the earlier destinations and deadlines of the Vision for Space Exploration—much to the consternation of some.
It appears that Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who chairs the appropriations subcommittee responsible for NASA, is one of those in favor of a more destination-drive approach to human spaceflight. In a letter to Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) excerpted in Space News, Mikulski said any new program must have a specific destination or destinations in mind:
“Since NASA’s creation, it has been a mission driven agency, and I believe having a clear direction and destination has contributed to NASA’s many successes,†she wrote. “NASA must continue to have a mission driven focus. To the maximum extent practicable, we should engage our international partners in formulating common destinations for human and robotic missions.â€
Mikulski also said her other priorities include astronaut safety and the need for human spaceflight to be “appropriately balanced” with science, aeronautics, and other technology development. Also on her radar: workforce concerns, particularly if the new NASA approach is to “scrap everything and start over”. She’s not in an hurry to take up this issue, though: an aide to Mikulski told Space News that her subcommittee’s first hearing on the NASA budget would not be until late March.
By Jeff Foust on 2010 February 17 at 8:19 am ET The House Science and Technology Committee has a pair of hearing scheduled next week that will feature, in part or in whole, discussion of NASA’s FY11 budget request and its change in direction. Presidential science advisor John Holdren will appear before the committee on the morning of February 24th to discuss the overall FY11 R&D budget proposal; that’s likely to include at least some discussion of NASA. The main event, though, will be the following morning, when NASA administrator Charles Bolden appears before the committee to discuss the agency’s budget request—and no doubt be grilled about the policy changes that proposal contains.
The chair of that committee’s space subcommittee, meanwhile, makes it clear she does not approve of elements of that new plan, particularly its scrapping of Constellation in favor or developing commercial systems to reach low Earth orbit. “I don’t like putting all our pace eggs into a commercial basket,” Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) told the Sierra Vista Herald. She said it’s “not a good idea” to rely on the private sector, telling the newspaper that she’s worried “the country’s national security could be harmed if private companies are given the opportunity to send missions into space”, without elaborating.
Giffords’s counterpart in the Senate, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), chairman of the space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, is also planning a hearing next week featuring Bolden and another former astronaut, Hoot Gibson (that hearing has not shown up yet on the committee’s hearing schedule). Nelson tells Florida Today that he’s concerned that the White House has given the public the perception that it’s killing human spaceflight. “And I can tell you that we’re not going to let it die. That’s not the president’s intention.” Nelson also reiterated earlier comments that the new plan needs a goal, namely Mars. “[E]verybody knows the goal and that’s to go to Mars,” he said.
Another member of Congress sounding off in opposition to NASA’s new direction is Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO). Coffman, whose district includes Lockheed Martin Space Systems’s facilities in Littleton, is, like representatives in other states, worried about the impact of ending Constellation on his district. “This program supports many high-paying jobs in the 6th District and throughout the country. Shutting it down directly jeopardizes those jobs and the families they support,” he said in a statement. Coffman is one of 27 signatories of a letter to Bolden about potential violations of law regarding NASA plans to wind down Constellation, although the letter identifies Coffman as being from Texas, not Colorado.
And a union, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, is also concerned about the job losses associated with terminating Constellation. “At a time when the U.S. economy in mired in the worst recession in 70 years and is in desperate need of a jobs creation program your Administration’s proposal to have NASA rely on the private sector to develop and operate manned space craft will contribute to the loss of several thousand well paid domestics [sic] jobs,” R. Thomas Buffenbarger, president of IAMAW, states in a letter to President Obama published by the Orlando Sentinel. Relying on the private sector, he adds, could “compromise fundamental safety issues” nor can it “ensure the level of security that NASA exercises”. “The push to privatize space travel is similar to efforts to privatize other critical government services. These efforts are based on anti-government ideology and are promoted by companies that want to profit from government outsourcing,” he concludes.
By Jeff Foust on 2010 February 15 at 12:11 pm ET An article in today’s Houston Chronicle reviews the “uphill battle” by freshman Republican Rep. Pete Olson to win support for Constellation, particularly given his “zero clout” with the White House and Democratic leadership in the House. What’s interesting are comments by the man Olson beat in the 2008 election, Nick Lampson:
Former Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Stafford, who had been in line to lead the House panel overseeing NASA before losing his seat to Olson, blames Texas’ current predicament squarely on the sweeping congressional redistricting fashioned by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land.
“Texas has suffered greatly,†said Lampson, who lost races in two congressional districts as a result.
“Without that redistricting, I would have been chairman of the space subcommittee representing JSC and in direct contact with the president and House leadership. That would have made a difference.â€
Would it have made a difference? One thing to keep in mind is that another Democrat with the ear of the White House on space issues, Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, wasn’t able to steer space policy in a direction that would avoid the loss of thousands of jobs at KSC—the concern now facing Olson and his constituents in and around JSC.
By Jeff Foust on 2010 February 15 at 10:27 am ET
In some of his first public comments since the release of the NASA budget proposal two weeks ago, Norm Augustine, chairman of the Review of US Human Spaceflight Plans Committee (aka the Augustine Committee), largely endorsed the agency’s new direction, but offered some caveats and concerns, primarily about funding.
Speaking Monday morning at the “April” meeting of the American Physical Society in Washington (so named because the meeting normally takes place in April, not February), Augustine reviewed the work os his committee and the outcome. “The space program is probably at a tipping point,” he said in his opening remarks. “It’s been almost 40 years since an astronaut traveled more than 400 miles form the surface of the Earth. We tend to forget that.” Going to the public and asking for large sums of money to return to the Moon in a decade or two “is a very hard case to make for a human spaceflight program.”
Augustine walked through the committee’s work, taking time to summarize the wide variety of emails he received from the public during the committee’s deliberations, ranging from calls to cancel spaceflight entirely to spend money on other efforts to various, often contradictory, calls for spending more money and/or spend it differently on various human spaceflight programs. “These views were religiously held,” he noted. “Nothing that I’ve been involved in seems to quite inspire the passion that the spaceflight program does, particularly the human spaceflight program. But the problem is that even those who do agree in a strong human spaceflight program generally don’t agree on which human spaceflight program they believe in.” (I humbly submit that the same conclusion can be reached by perusing the comments to various posts here.)
Augustine, both in his speech and in brief comments with reporters afterwards, indicated that he was not surprised to see Ares 1 get cancelled. “Our conclusion is that it would like be a very fine launch vehicle, it would be very reliable; the question wasn’t can we build it, the question was should we build it,” he said in his speech.
“The current step, if you think about, was almost preordained,” Augustine said later. “The view of our committee, the unanimous view, was that at least the Ares 1 had little chance of ever providing a useful role. I’m not questioning its technology, just its utility. Since the Ares 5 had just begun, you can understand why he [President Obama] did what he did.”
Augustine also took note of some of the criticism that the new plan’s emphasis on commercial crew and cargo providers—something included in most of the Augustine committee’s options—had received on Capitol Hill. “I find it remarkable that those same leaders have allocated money to pay the Russians to carry our astronauts into orbit, but they don’t think US industry can do it,” he said. “Not much of a vote of confidence.”
One area of concern that Augustine noted was the funding that NASA received. The committee found that an increase of $3 billion a year was needed for a “substantive” space exploration program. The administration’s budget request instead calls for an average of $1.2 billion a year over the next five years. “The program the president proposed is presumably the strongest program that the nation could afford with today’s budget,” he said. “To its credit it matches the means to the ends. But in my view the true test is not today. The true test will be after the technology development program is conducted: what then will be the mission of the human spaceflight program, and, importantly, will enough money be allocated to carry it out in a safe, responsible fashion.”
Not having an immediate firm direction for the human spaceflight program now isn’t a problem, he said, so long as this state doesn’t last for more than a few years. “I would be concerned if we wait a decade to make a decision as to what we’re going to do,” he said after his talk. “But if, after a few years, we were to make a decision that, for example, we’re going to follow the Flexible Path… then I think that’s a better plan than the one we have today.”
While the administration’s budget fell short of the recommendation of the committee, Augustine said he understood the situation. “I’m a space advocate. I would hope that the nation could afford additional funds,” he said. However, “I do realize that we’re in a tough financial period, and I also realize that he [Obama] did add money to the space program,” one of the few agencies that did get an increase. “I think it’s a question of whether you look at the glass as half-full or half-empty.”
And how does he see it? “I’m always a half-full guy.”
By Jeff Foust on 2010 February 14 at 5:47 pm ET Although last week’s “Snowmageddon” forced the Space Frontier Foundation to cancel its lobbying event, “Take Back Space 2010″ (a wise move given the blizzard that hit a few days later), other lobbying efforts are still on track for the coming weeks. The Space Exploration Alliance is hosting its 2010 Legislative Blitz next week, with training on February 21 and Hill visits the following two days. The SEA hasn’t issued a detailed agenda or platform yet, although it looks like some of the language on the Blitz page could use some updating. “In the current economic climate, however, it is uncertain which path our nation’s leaders will now take in response to the Augustine Commission’s findings. An increase in funding is not necessarily the path that will be chosen,” the SEA states. Arguably true, one supposes, since Congress hasn’t acted on the president’s budget request that does increase NASA’s budget, although not at the levels necessarily desired by space advocates.
One of the key members of the SEA, the National Space Society, issued its own take on the budget proposal earlier this month that hints at what might be in the SEA platform. The NSS supports the technology development programs included in the budget proposal but “calls for the President and Congress to restore funding for human spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit”. In particular, it called for amending a goal from the original Vision for Space Exploration, with a human return to the Moon by 2025, instead of 2020.
After the SEA’s visits on the Hill, ProSpace arrives the following week for March Storm 2010. Its take on the budget proposal is markedly different from the NSS’s. “For more than a decade, participants in ProSpace’s annual March Storm have advocated for NASA’s use of commercial crew and cargo service providers to access the International Space Station and low-Earth orbit,” the organization states in a February 3 press release. “This week, we got what we’ve been asking for.”
ProSpace’s agenda, included in the press release, focuses on three areas: spaceport infrastructure, commercial crew and cargo services, and export control reform. They will be performing training on February 28th (presumably not the 29th, as stated in the press release), and making visits to the Hill on March 1 and 2.
By Jeff Foust on 2010 February 14 at 11:59 am ET That’s the allegation made in a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden by 27 members of the House, primarily, but not entirely, from Alabama, Florida, Texas, and Utah. They are concerned about apparent efforts by NASA to wind down elements of Constellation during the current fiscal year, despite this provision in the appropriations bill that funds NASA for FY10:
[N]one of the funds provided herein and from prior years that remain available for obligation during fiscal year 2010 shall be available for the termination or elimination of any program, project or activity of the architecture for the Constellation program nor shall such funds be available to create or initiate a new program, project or activity, unless such program termination, elimination, creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent appropriations Acts.
The congressmen cite a number of actions, or at least rumored actions, by NASA since the unveiling of the FY11 budget proposal that would end Constellation. Those include the formation of “tiger teams” to deal with the transition from Constellation and “disturbing report” (as the letter puts it) of verbal instructions to Constellation program managers about planning the shutdown of those efforts.
Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) is concerned in particular with the agency’s decision to cancel the planned solicitation of one Constellation element, the Exploration Ground Launch Services (EGLS) contract at the Kennedy Space Center. On Friday NASA sent a letter to interested companies that the procurement had been canceled. “In light of recent events and the uncertainty of future ground processing requirements for fiscal year 2011 and beyond, it is in NASA’s best interest to cancel the current solicitation,” the letter states.
“The termination of the Constellation programs is a proposal by the President, but it is Congress who will accept or reject that proposal,” the letter states. “In the meantime, FY10 funds for the Constellation programs are to be spent if the program will continue – that is the clear intent of the specific language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act.”
The letter demands that NASA reverse those efforts, including its decision to “unapprove” an unspecified “major contract” for Ares 1 last month. It also asks NASA to accelerate an effort by the agency to develop safety criteria for the proposed commercial crew transportation effort because of its “enormous impact” on the cost to the agency. Those issues will no doubt come up at congressional hearings next week on the agency’s new direction.
By Jeff Foust on 2010 February 12 at 8:10 pm ET Much has been made today of the announcement of the “Second to None” group in Huntsville, created by the city’s mayor, Tommy Battle, and led by former congressman Bud Cramer. The group is designed to help the region’s Congressional delegation “understand how ending Constellation would affect the Tennessee Valley”. Cramer, though, appeared to be taking a bigger view in his comments. “If we pull the plug on the programs we’re already well into, that we spent a lot of good tax payer money on, then we are not being smart about where we as a country are going, what we expect NASA to be all about,” he said, according to local TV station WHNT. The report adds that Cramer is “cautiously optimistic the House and Senate will vote down the President’s plan for NASA.”
The group is made of about 25 people from business, academia, and other organization, although you don’t have to be a local to recognize some of the names: former NASA administrator Mike Griffin (now at UAH), former MSFC director Dave King (now at Dynetics), and former Ares manager Steve Cook (also now at Dynetics).
However, this is only the latest in a series of moves at the local and state level to try and salvage Constellation. On Thursday the state legislature passed resolutions asking the president to reverse his decision to cancel Constellation. The resolutions, SJR 58 and HJR 261, passed in the Senate and House respectively without dissent. The resolutions don’t speak about the importance of spaceflight or the threat of falling behind other nations; instead, it bluntly notes, “cancellation of the Constellation program would significantly harm the citizens and economies of the City of Huntsville and the State of Alabama.”
Also, earlier in the week Rep. Artur Davis, a Democrat from Birmingham, met with Huntsville-area space industry officials and others and left saying he would fight for Constellation. “We cannot do to ourselves what our enemies have tried to do to us, and that’s to retreat from human spaceflight,” the Huntsville Times quotes him as saying. Why Davis, who has not been very outspoken on space issues in the past, took a strong interest in Constellation wasn’t mentioned in the article; however, it did note that Davis is running for governor.
By Jeff Foust on 2010 February 12 at 10:53 am ET Despite the blizzard conditions that struck Washington earlier this week, NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver made it to the FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference in Crystal City, Virginia, on Thursday. (She was filling in for administrator Bolden, who could not make it back to DC from Texas and Alabama because of the storm.) In front of a friendly, receptive audience, she made the case for greater use by NASA of commercial space capabilities, both orbital and suborbital.
“We plan to transform our relationship with the private sector as part of our nation’s new strategy with the ultimate goal of expanding human presence across the solar system,” she said early in her speech. “So don’t be fooled by those who say we have no goal. That is the goal.” She also noted that NASA’s proposed plan to support the commercial space industry is a natural extension of efforts dating back to the Reagan Administration’s decision to stop using the shuttle for commercial satellite launches—a line in the speech designed, perhaps, to win greater Republican support for the Democratic administration’s plan.
Her speech reviewed the key highlights of the agency’s new plan as released in its FY11 budget proposal last week, filling in a few additional details and expanding on some issues and concerns, such as the effects canceling Constellation will have on the workforce. “In the short term I recognize that there are a lot of people worried about jobs, and we understand,” she said. She noted, though, that the agency’s overall budget is increased, and that translate into jobs, although there will be “displacements” in the near term. “In the long run bolstering the US commercial space industry will help the economy.”
Garver provided some words of support, and praise, for the Constellation workforce. “The wonderful people in our own NASA family and industry who were working on Constellation absolutely did nothing wrong and did not fail,” she said. “Our contractor and NASA workforce is an incredible asset to the nation and we believe it will continue to be that. But they deserve to work on programs that are well thought out, make sense, and have the resources to succeed.”
She also more broadly defended a core aspect of the plan: replacing Ares 1/Orion with commercial alternatives. Doing so, she said, not only would help stimulate the economy but also be a lower risk approach. “We will diversify our risk by funding a portfolio of highly-qualified competitors instead of a high-risk approach in which we fund only one system,” she said. “We’re going to see the most exciting space race that NASA’s seen in a long time, and there’s likely to be more than one winner.”
On a related note, early in her speech she got in a minor jab at those who criticize NASA for dumping Constellation in favor of “untried” commercial systems. She congratulated the agency for the successful launch that morning of the Solar Dynamics Observatory on an Atlas 5—the same vehicle some companies have proposed for use to launch human spacecraft. “So much for those unproven rockets,” she quipped.
Garver also discussed NASA’s role in commercial suborbital spaceflight. “I do anticipate that one day soon that these [suborbital] vehicles will be safe enough that NASA will pay for hundreds of astronauts and scientists and technology developers to fly into space each and every year,” she said. To ensure that these vehicles are safe enough for NASA, she said, the Dryden Flight Research Center would lead the safety assessment of these vehicles, although she didn’t discuss the details of how such assessments would work.
She also briefly touched upon the need for export control reform to help make the US commercial space industry more competitive. The Obama Administration, she said, was aware of these concerns, “and are working hard to find ways to reform the regime.”
After her speech she said that she was not surprised by the strong and often strongly negative, reaction to the agency’s new direction. “I think we fully expected that any change of this magnitude was going to have people concerned. The status quo is tough to move,” she said. She added that the agency was ready to provide more information about the plan during Congressional hearings planned for late this month. “We have a lot of details and we look forward to discussing them.”
By Jeff Foust on 2010 February 10 at 7:24 am ET One interesting aspect of NASA’s FY11 budget proposal released last week was the lack of detail in the budget request. In past years, like FY10, NASA has released lengthy documents going into detail about all the programs, their funding levels, and other details. This year, though, all that NASA released last Monday was a single presentation with five-year projections for key programs, but no further details.
There may be a good reason why the FY11 release was so brief. Speaking at the NASA Innovative Partnerships Program Commercial Space Update Meeting in Crystal City, Virginia, on Tuesday, a NASA official indicated that NASA got its budget “passback” from OMB very late in the budget process. Very late. Normally the passback to the agency is provided around Thanksgiving, or at the latest early December. “The passback this year was the Saturday night before—less than 48 hours before—the budget rollout,” said Charles Miller, senior advisor for commercial space at NASA, as an explanation for the lack of details about some of the technology R&D programs contained in the budget proposal.
Why the budget passback was so late isn’t clear, but if the agency doesn’t know its funding levels until just before the budget’s release, it doesn’t give people much time to fill in the details. Miller added that the new emphasis on technology programs came at the direction of the White House, which had indicated to NASA last year that what they agency was doing was not innovative enough, and asked NASA to study what it could do if it had more R&D funding. That effort culminated in the new technology programs included in the budget request.
In the days since last Monday’s budget release, agency officials have mentioned that they’re working to provide more details, in particular on the exploration plan. In today’s Houston Chronicle, administrator Charles Bolden said he’s working on the “beginnings of a plan” for human exploration that will be ready when he appears at Congressional hearings currently scheduled for February 24 and 25. That plan, he hinted, would have Mars as a long-term goal, possibly as soon as the early 2030s.
|
|
