By Jeff Foust on 2010 January 31 at 8:06 pm ET NASA issued Sunday evening a press release revising its budget rollout plans. Gone is the press conference at NASA Headquarters at 3 pm EST. Instead, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and CFO Beth Robinson will participate in a teleconference at 12:30 pm EST. Also, NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver will be a participant of an OSTP press conference, led by OSTP director John Holdren, Monday at 1 pm EST about the federal government’s overall FY11 R&D budget. Holdren and Bolden will then make an announcement Tuesday at 10 am EST at the National Press Club to “introduce new commercial space pioneers, launching a game-changing way of developing technology to send humans to space.”
By Jeff Foust on 2010 January 30 at 9:18 am ET We don’t know any more details about the NASA FY2011 budget proposal, or its planned changes to NASA’s human spaceflight program, than we did a couple days ago, when unnamed officials offered some details about the plan. That hasn’t stopped, though, some people, including some members of Congress, from weighing in with varying degrees of rhetorical flourishes. Take, for example, these comments from Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) to the Ogden Standard-Examiner about what has been reported:
“With this administration, their specific effort is to cut the crap out of the defense program, and what we’re hearing from Florida is that (the NASA cut) will be an item in Monday’s budget,” Bishop said.
“Obviously, I don’t agree this is the right direction. They’ll basically be gutting our space program and coming up with a commercial alternative. It will be devastating.”
Strong stuff, but that’s nothing compared to the invective from one blogger on Blogcritics.org. (Go ahead and read the first paragraph. See?) Or there are the comments by Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt on Friday in a speech in Ocala, Florida:
“If it is a commercial effort only to visit the space station, then it is the beginning of the end of human space exploration,” he said.
“Ultimately, you abandon the moon to China, you abandon the space station to Russia, and you abandon liberty to the ages.
“If China and Russia are the dominant space powers, then liberty is at risk because they don’t believe in it.”
So right now, we’re long (really long) on outrage, but short on insight on the exact details of the plan. We could wait until Monday (3 pm EST press conference at NASA Headquarters) to see exactly what is in the plan and base our reactions on that, but where’s the fun in that?
A couple other items of interest:
As you might expect from previous statements, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) isn’t enthused about the apparent reliance on commercial providers. “China, India, and Russia will be putting humans in space while we wait on commercial hobbyists to actually back up their grand promises,” he told Space News, calling the proposed investment in commercial crew transportation “a welfare program for amateur rocket companies”.
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) wanted development of a heavy-lift rocket, he tells Florida Today, warning that investing in commercial providers would delay development of a heavy-lift booster “well into the next decade, and that just means we get behind China and Russia.”
By Jeff Foust on 2010 January 29 at 6:09 am ET While NASA’s revised human spaceflight plans won’t be released in detail until Monday’s budget announcement, what has been announced has been enough to generate some strong, almost visceral reactions from members of Congress. For example, yesterday afternoon Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) dismissed what has been revealed about those plans as “simply unacceptable” in a press release:
Though we are still awaiting the full budget details scheduled to be released next week, I am deeply concerned by what Administration officials have said about the President’s proposal for NASA. I agree with extending use of the International Space Station and I am a strong supporter of commercial spaceflight, but I do not think we can rely on commercial flights alone for access to space and the ISS. If we are not moving forward with a specific vision for a next generation vehicle, then we need to take steps to safely extend the Shuttle program in order to fully support the Space Station.
I also firmly believe that a robust space exploration program is critical for our economy and for inspiring future generations to excel in science and technology for the 21st Century. The President’s proposal would leave NASA with essentially no program and no timeline for exploration beyond Earth’s orbit.Â
The President pledged that he would minimize the spaceflight gap, but without a plan for exploration beyond research and development, he is threatening to turn the gap into an abyss with no end in sight. The Space Coast and communities across the country have been looking to the President for leadership and a bold vision for the future of space exploration, and after months of delays he seems to be falling short. It is simply unacceptable and I will fight back, along with my colleagues from both parties, to maintain a robust space program and to preserve as many Space Coast jobs as possible.
The White House isn’t getting much love from Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), who also deems elements of the plan “unacceptable”:
Based on initial reports about the administration’s plan for NASA, they are replacing lost shuttle jobs in Florida too slowly, risking U.S. leadership in space to China and Russia, and relying too heavily on unproven commercial companies.
If the $6 billion in extra funding is for a commercial rocket, then the bigger rocket for human exploration will be delayed well into the next decade. That is unacceptable.
We need a plan that provides America with uninterrupted access to space while also funding exploration to expand the boundaries of our knowledge.
Those members who have taken the time to comment about the plan—only a few, to be certain—have almost uniformly been critical of what is known about the plan, and we have not publicly heard from others who, based on past comments, are likely to be critical of it, like Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL). The closest thing to an endorsement is from Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who told the Cleveland Plain Dealer yesterday that expansion of other aeronautics and space programs would “more than compensate for the loss of Constellation”.
This raises a key question: who will champion the new human spaceflight program in Congress once it’s formally released? The new plan may be Congressional crosshairs as soon as Wednesday, when the House Science and Technology Committee’s space subcommittee holds a hearing on “key issues and challenges” for NASA. Which members of Congress will step forward to support the plan? Without such support, the prospects for this new approach don’t look good.
Update 1 pm: A Floriday Today article also has what appears to be bad news:
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat who heads the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds NASA, said that if reports of Obama’s plans for NASA are true, “I’m troubled.” Mikulski represents NASA’s Goddard Space Center.
The article doesn’t indicate if Mikulski elaborated on what part of the plan that’s been revealed so far she found “troubling”. However, since she chairs the Senate appropriations subcommittee whose jurisdiction includes NASA, she is an important player in the coming debate.
By Jeff Foust on 2010 January 28 at 7:03 am ET Yesterday’s Orlando Sentinel article about plans to cancel Constellation was remarkable: while it didn’t say anything that was that surprising (the cancellation of Ares 1, development of commercial crew transportation providers, and a shift to a “Flexible Path” architecture all had been rumored to be in the works for weeks), the article was influential enough that it got the White House and NASA to officially (if largely anonymously) to respond and confirm many of the details.
The article also got several members of Congress to issue statements yesterday about potential changes. (Most of these statements were issued before the follow-up article last night, although that may not mollify many of their concerns.) Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) issued a statement that was relatively mild. “I would strongly oppose any further cuts to human space flight funding that would make the United States dependent on foreign nations for manned space access,” she says. “I will be working with my colleagues in the Senate to provide additional guidance to NASA in conducting its human space flight planning and in developing the congressional response to the President’s budget, after it is submitted to the Congress.”
Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) was a little more strident in his opposition to potential changes. “If recent reports regarding the future of the Constellation program and the direction of NASA are true, then the President could not be more wrong to consider canceling it. The Constellation program is the best means for America to remain the global leader in human space flight,” he stated. “I will be working steadfastly with my colleagues to ensure that this short sighted proposal is not the final answer on the future of NASA.”
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), who is often described as an advisor to the White House on space issues, wanted to hear more from the president in last night’s State of the Union address. “On the downside, we’re going to have to get the president to do more for NASA. America’s global leadership in science and technology is at stake if we don’t maintain a more robust space exploration program. I’m still hopeful we’ll be able to do that.”
Louisiana’s two senators, Mary Landrieu (D) and David Vitter (R), also expressed concern about potential changes, particularly given their effect on the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans. “As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will review and analyze the president’s budget in detail and ensure that the Michoud facility in New Orleans east remains a viable player within NASA, whatever its future holds,” Landrieu said. Vitter, meanwhile, called the potential cancellation of Ares “devastating” for Michoud. “Instead, we should develop a heavy-lift capability for human space flight that builds on existing shuttle-based technologies in a very cost-conscious way. But we should do that now, not just talk about it vaguely for the future and lose all of our human capital and expertise at Michoud and other centers.”
By Jeff Foust on 2010 January 27 at 11:16 pm ET As many people suspected, the president did not mention space policy or NASA specifically during his State of the Union speech tonight. (The closest item relevant to space policy was a passing reference to “reform export controls consistent with national security”, an always-hot topic for the commercial space industry.) Less than an hour after he completed his speech, one member of Congress, Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL), issued a statement that, in part, expressed disappointment about the omission:
I am also disappointed that the President did not take this opportunity to highlight the importance of NASA and human spaceflight, especially in light of reports casting doubt on the future of our space exploration program. Human spaceflight boosts our economy, helps develop countless new technologies, and supports thousands of jobs in Central Florida and across the country. Space exploration is also critical for inspiring this and future generations to excel in science and technology that will make us competitive in the 21st Century.
Â
The President has pledged to minimize the spaceflight gap and Space Coast families are looking for him to fulfill that promise. It will be unacceptable if his budget does not reflect a commitment to a robust human spaceflight program.
By Jeff Foust on 2010 January 27 at 8:48 pm ET While the rumors, speculation, and debate about NASA’s future direction has exploded in the last few days, NASA administrator Charles Bolden has been out of the country, attending the Ilan Ramon International Space Conference in Israel and holding other meetings there. He did speak with the press there and provided some interesting comments about the future direction of the agency in a 10-minute video provided by Arutz Sheva.
“There are dramatic changes that are about to take place in our human spaceflight program,” Bolden said, apparently in response to a question about flying an Israeli astronaut. “The number one change will be the end of the space shuttle era,” he said, and talked about the impending retirement of the shuttle and the loss of its capabilities. The last shuttle flight, he said, “will be the last time in the history of mankind—unless we change our minds, you know, which I don’t think is going to happen—that you’ll see a vehicle of its capability leave this planet and go into low Earth orbit.”
Bolden suggested that the gap between the shuttle and its successor will give ammunition to some that NASA should, of all things, scrap its astronaut corps. “I can guarantee you that there will be debate as to whether NASA needs to have astronauts,” he said. “I can just see it coming in the United States, you know. I wish it were not going to come up, but it will come up: ‘You don’t have a space shuttle, you’re not flying a vehicle, so why do you need astronauts?’ I get asked those kinds of questions all the time.”
So what will replace the shuttle? Bolden’s comments indicated, as has been reported in the last few days, that the emphasis will be on commercial providers. “What we’re going to focus on, what NASA will focus on, is… facilitating the success of I like to use the term ‘entrepreneurial interests’,” he said. He used that specific term in order to make clear that NASA has used various products and personnel from contractors over the years. “We have been involved in commercial space exploration since I came to NASA, and we will continue to be involved. What’s going to change, I think, is that instead of NASA buying a vehicle and then taking over its primary operations we will buy a service” based on who can provide the best price for transportation to the ISS.
Bolden also said that any exploration of the Moon—whenever that may be—will be by necessity an international program. “No matter what the president—no matter what his vision is, or no matter what he tells us, whenever humans go back to the Moon it will be, I believe, an international effort.”
“My dream is to go to Mars,” he said later. “I won’t make it, probably.” Like going to the Moon, he said, human Mars missions would be an international venture, but before we can “responsibly” send such missions to Mars, we need to first tackle the issues of propulsion and radiation exposure. “For people who get excited about whatever they see come out of President Obama’s vision, and people who want to say, ‘Well, we’re not going to Mars,” we didn’t say that. We said we’re going to Mars one of these days. People will leave this planet, I think, and go to Mars, but when we do it, it’s going to be done responsibly, ethically, and we’re going to do is such that they survive and come home.”
Bolden also paid some attention to the issue of near Earth objects, something that got notice recently with the release of an National Research Council report on NEO surveys and mitigation. “One of my jobs as the NASA administrator—I didn’t realize it when I took the job—is to work in coordination with the Secretary of Defense for protection of the planet, and it means trying to locate and identify things that threaten the planet, be they asteroids or big rocks or what,” he said. Bolden said that NASA has not done a “very good job” looking for NEOs. The impact last summer of an object with Jupiter, witnessed by Hubble among other telescopes, got a lot of attention in NASA and the White House, he said. “That got everybody’s attention, up to President Obama,” Bolden said. “I think you will see us devote a little bit more time—I don’t know how, I can’t state definitively right now how much more money, how much more time, or anything, but you’re going to see one of the things that we do is devote more time and energy to understanding near Earth objects and things that threaten the planet from outside.”
“We’re going to have to adapt to change,” Bolden said near the end of the video. He reminded the audience that the budget proposal and policy changes are only the beginning of the process of changing the space agency. “The president’s decision is the beginning of the debate,” he said. “I think what we’re going to do, based on what I know today, is the best thing for the nation and the best thing for the family of spacefaring nations.”
By Jeff Foust on 2010 January 27 at 7:44 pm ET The Orlando Sentinel and Florida Today got some confirmation late today about the White House’s plans for NASA. In a telecon, an unnamed NASA official and unnamed administration official, along with former astronaut and Augustine committee member Sally Ride, provided these details:
- NASA would get an average of $1.3 billion a year in additional funding over the next five years;
- The ISS would be extended to 2020;
- A $6-billion program to develop commercial crew transportation would be started;
- Money would be set aside for technology R&D programs and infrastructure upgrades at the Kennedy Space Center;
- Ares 1 and 5 would be cancelled; and
- There was no discussion of a replacement heavy-lift vehicle.
A quote from Sally Ride: “For NASA to be getting new money over the projections is to me is an indication of how seriously this administration takes NASA and our goal of future innovations in this country.”
And from the unidentified NASA official: “As you know the current program of record did not hold water… The fact that we would have had a program where the space station didn’t ever again have any humans launching from the United States to it until it was driven into the Pacific Ocean.. we felt very, very strongly that this was not a program to be adopted.”
One other item of interest: the Florida Today account notes that “All told, the budget would provide $100 billion to NASA over five years and create an estimated 1,700 jobs in Florida in the commercial space industry and 5,000 nationwide.” If those job numbers sound familiar, they’re identical to those in a Commercial Spaceflight Federation press release in September. Hmmm…
By Jeff Foust on 2010 January 27 at 2:59 pm ET Although the only details about what might (or might not) be in the White House’s new space exploration have come through assorted media reports, that hasn’t stopped one member of Congress from sounding the alarm, and loudly. Congressman Bill Posey (R-FL), a leading advocate for extending the shuttle, issued a statement today criticizing the plan as reported. It’s not up on his web site yet, so here it is below:
President’s NASA “Plan†Is A Giant Leap Backwards and Would Be Devastating to America’s Space Program and the Space Coast
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Bill Posey (R-Rockledge) released the following statement in reaction to news reports that the Obama Administration is preparing to eliminate America’s next generation space vehicle to invest in earth sciences:
Â
“Although Congress awaits the President’s official budget request next week, I am deeply concerned over news reports citing Administration officials that the President seems determined to abdicate America’s leadership in human space exploration. Just weeks before the 2008 election, then-Senator Obama came though Central Florida promising the nation and the residents of Brevard County that if elected President, he would close the space gap and keep America first in space. If this news report is even half right, this plan, if you can call it a plan, would be a devastating reversal of that commitment.Â
Â
“This Administration has thrown hundreds of billions of dollars into a failed stimulus bill, but when it comes to keeping America first in space his ‘plan’ is to cancel the development of America’s next human space vehicle, outsource our good-paying Shuttle jobs to the Russians, place all of our hopes on a yet unproven commercial adventure, rush/force the transition to yet unproven commercial alternatives, and shifts money from human space flight to global warming research.
Â
“Until we have a clearer plan for the future, the only realistic and reasonable way to preserve America’s leadership in space is too [sic] provide for a temporary extension of the Shuttle. To terminate the Shuttle later this year with no plan, but rather a vain hope, is ill advised.
Â
“My biggest fear is that this amounts to a slow death of our nation’s human space flight program; a retreat from America’s decades of leadership in space, ending the economic advantages that our space program has brought to the U.S., and ceding space to the Russians, Chinese and others. I will do all that I can to stop this ill-advised plan.
Â
“The President’s U-turn on this issue is both bizarre and misguided. I will continue to work with my House colleagues from both parties and from across the country to keep America first in space. This issue is far from over.â€Â Â
By Jeff Foust on 2010 January 27 at 7:36 am ET Will President Obama mention space in tonight’s State of the Union address? Space advocates are hopeful yet doubtful NASA will get a shoutout in the address. “I don’t know that he’s going to talk about NASA in the State of the Union,” Sen. Bill Nelson tells Florida Today. The two representatives who serve Florida’s Space Coast region, Suzanne Kosmas and Bill Posey, hope that he’ll mention space in his speech.
Nelson, though, did release a statement about the prospects for NASA funding given word of a freeze on non-security discretionary spending. “Will freezing the budget impact the space program? No – it shouldn’t, as long as the president is committed to a robust space program and keeping America first in science and technology,” Nelson’s statement reads, as published by Central Florida News 13. “Such a freeze would be on the overall budget within which some agencies could get more and some less.”
Meanwhile, the House member who chairs the appropriations subcommittee whose jurisdiction includes NASA will be able to work on the FY11 budget without worrying about a criminal investigation. The Justice Department has closed a four-year investigation into the finances of Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) without filing charges. Mollohan chairs the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. There had been speculation that he would not seek reelection this year, and although he did file papers to run again last week he’s expected to face a strong fight in the general election after not facing a Republican challenger in 2008.
By Jeff Foust on 2010 January 27 at 7:14 am ET The lede of today’s Orlando Sentinel article is blunt: “NASA’s plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead.” So, it claims, are the Ares 1 and 5 rockets, which will not be funded in the FY2011 budget proposal to be released on Monday. “There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all,” the article continues. The article, citing a collection of (unnamed, of course) White House, Congress, NASA, and industry officials, claims that the budget will include the eventual development of a heavy-lift vehicle, but focus more in the near term on Earth science projects and R&D work to enable future human missions beyond LEO, as well as supporting development of commercial crew transportation systems to get crews to and from the ISS.
None of this is terribly surprising, given the rumors and hints that have leaked out in recent weeks and months, although the presentation here is particularly stark. It would, though, face some strong opposition from Congress, which included in the final FY2010 appropriations a provision preventing “termination or elimination” of any aspect of Constellation or creation of any new related program without approval from Congress in a subsequent appropriation. It’s not clear if the White House will seek a supplemental appropriation for FY10 to make that change now, or wait until the final FY11 bill is approved (which might be well into the 2011 fiscal year, based on past experience on the time Congress takes to finalize such bills) to make such changes, which means current Constellation development funded in the FY10 budget might be for nought.
Several members of Texas’ Congressional delegation, Republican and Democrat, tell the Houston Chronicle they may might any substantial changes in NASA’s exploration plans. “His own commission recommended a $3 billion increase to have a sustainable program,” Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) said, referring to the Augustine committee. “His own commission recommended a $3 billion increase to have a sustainable program.” And Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX): “We’re going to be very vocal about any undermining of the commitment to NASA that is different.” Will they—or, more importantly, will appropriators—back up those words with action, and funding?
|
|
