By Jeff Foust on 2009 September 29 at 7:56 am ET At yesterday’s meeting on the Space Coast, speakers said Florida must demand that president fund an “ambitious” space exploration program, in large part to protect jobs there. Or, as Florida Today put it, “President Barack Obama is in for an earful from Florida elected officials and space industry leaders”. The event referenced the Save Space letter-writing effort launched yesterday (as discussed here) as well as then-candidate Obama’s August 2008 speech where he said he would “close the gap” between the shuttle and its successor.
Florida Today is one of the sponsors of Save Space, so it’s no surprise it endorses the effort in an editorial Tuesday, asking readers to write letters to the president asking him to keep that campaign promise.
Increased funding for NASA was also endorsed in a recent editorial by the Cleveland Plain Dealer. It notes the expense of Constellation, but adds that despite concerns about “today’s depressed economy and growing federal debt”, NASA should get that additional funding, particularly to develop Ares and Orion, which it calls “necessities”.
Also worth noting is op-ed in Sunday’s Washington Times by Michael Bloomfield, a former astronaut and current vice president of ATK. He argues that “crew safety is of utmost importance in evaluating shuttle replacements” based on the lessons of Challenger and Columbia, and that Ares 1/Orion would be “tops for safety against any other option by a significant degree”. Regarding commercial alternatives, he claims that “they still lag behind Ares I safety by a factor of 3 to 5 and do not meet the Columbia investigation’s clear assertion that America should replace the shuttle with a vehicle that is ‘significantly safer.'”
By Jeff Foust on 2009 September 28 at 7:17 am ET That’s the hope of a new effort on Florida’s Space Coast that’s launching today. Save Space, an effort led by Brevard County’s board of commissioners, is encouraging Floridians and other Americans to write letters to President Obama in support of the space program. The draft letters on the web site ask the president to:
- add an additional $3 billion a year to NASA’s budget;
- close the shuttle-Constellation gap by extending the shuttle;
- extend the life of the ISS;
- align human spaceflight goals “with key national objectives including clean energy, climate-change, and improved health”; and
- accelerate the development of “a well-designed and adequately funded heavy-lift space technology program” (not explicitly naming Ares 5 or shuttle-derived alternatives).
The site’s launch is tied to the Florida Space and Technology Forum taking place this morning in Cocoa, with Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas as one of the participants. The goal of the Save Space campaign is to have 500,000 letters delivered to the White House by the end of October.
While the site claims that the campaign’s purpose is to “raise the awareness of the nation, the President, and other elected officials: Space needs to be a priority for America”, there’s a more parochial concern as well: saving jobs on the Space Coast and protecting the local economy. “If this shuttle doesn’t get extended, it’s going to be very, very devastating to the community. I started thinking to myself, why isn’t the community screaming about it?” Brevard County Commissioner Robin Fisher told Florida Today. To that end, the web site plans to be a “learning tool” for students in Brevard County public schools; Space Florida will promote the site at a state level. (Interestingly, Florida Today is listed as a partner on the Save Space site, a relationship not mentioned in the article.)
By Jeff Foust on 2009 September 27 at 10:21 am ET On Friday Congressmen Ron Klein (D-FL) and Charlie Melancon (D-LA) introduced HR 3654, the Hurricane Satellite Modernization Act. The bill would authorize $3 billion for NASA and NOAA in fiscal years 2010 through 2027 (!!) to build and launch a series of spacecraft called the Extended Ocean Vector Winds Mission (XOVWM, an acronym that looks just about impossible to pronounce). XOVWM would replace the existing, but aging, QuikSCAT satellite that measures winds over the ocean, useful for studying hurricanes, among other applications.
Klein, in a press release associated with the bill’s introduction, cites an internal NOAA memo that states that QuikSCAT is likely to fail in “weeks or months”. “This is a serious wake-up call which reminds us we have no time to waste,” Klein said.
If this sounds familiar, it should: last year Klein and Melancon introduced similar legislation authorizing the development of XOVWM. (Compare the current bill with last year’s HR 6993 and you’ll find that they’re essentially identical, with only minor tweaks to the language and the years the funding is authorized for.) Klein said in his statement Friday that he planned to reintroduce the bill this year but “his decision to introduce the legislation today was directly spurred by the NOAA warning” about the impending failure of QuikSCAT. Last year’s bill, though, was introduced at almost the same time as this year’s: September 22, 2008 versus September 25, 2009. If it’s so important, why wait until late in the current session to do so?
There’s also the debate about just how important QuikSCAT is to hurricane forecasting. The Palm Beach Post reports that the NOAA memo states that the loss of QuikSCAT would have little effect on forecasts for storms near the US and Caribbean because of alternative means of collecting the data, although the satellite is useful for studying storms in the open ocean. Bill Read, director of the National Hurricane Center, said a QuikSCAT replacement “isn’t critical” but “would be welcome”.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 September 27 at 9:55 am ET When I mentioned in an earlier post that the discovery of lunar water wasn’t a reason itself for human exploration of the Moon but improved the prospects if advocates could establish a “compelling case” for doing so, it raised a debate in the comments on what would constitute such a rationale. For a government-funded (or at least a government-led), what would convince the White House and Congress to invest more in NASA’s human spaceflight program, given that the Augustine committee concluded that current funding was insufficient for human missions beyond LEO on anything like the current timescales?
I asked that question in an essay in Monday’s issue of The Space Review and found the current arguments lacking. National security, technological innovation, spinoffs, and education, among others, don’t seem strong enough separately or even in aggregate to support the billions of dollars a year of additional funding the Augustine committee claimed it needed. That compelling case—if it does exist—is still out there waiting to be found.
I noticed earlier this week the unveiling of GoBoldlyNASA.org, a web site that intends to explain “how space exploration is important to you, the nation, and our future”. (While not explicitly stated there, the site is apparently a project of the Young Professionals branch of the Citizens for Space Exploration.) The site, though, just rehashes many of the old arguments, the ones that have not proven compelling in the past. The site includes a letter you can sign to send to your representatives, but the call to action is weak: “I urge you to provide adequate investment in our nation’s space program.” What may be one person’s “adequate investment” may be another’s wholly inadequate—or simply unaffordable.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 September 25 at 9:21 pm ET This afternoon the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a new report on the status of NASA’s Constellation program. That report was requested by Congressman Bart Gordon, chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, who issued a press release about the report right after it came out. The GAO report, according to Gordon, demonstrated that Constellation has suffered from funding shortfalls that has hobbled its development.
“[I]t should come as no surprise that funding is at the center of NASA’s inability to complete the work necessary to build confidence in the cost and schedule estimates the agency develops for Constellation,” Gordon says in the press release. He adds: “GAO’s report provides a sobering indication of the negative impact that funding shortfalls can have on complex and technically difficult space flight programs like Constellation, no matter how dedicated and skillful the program’s workforce is.”
The report itself, though, isn’t that clear-cut. “The Constellation program has not yet developed all of the elements of a sound business case needed to justify entry into implementation,” it states. It does cite “cost issues and a poorly phased funding plan” as one problem, but also mentions “significant technical and design challenges” (including, but not limited to, the now-infamous thrust oscillation issue with the Ares 1 first stages), changes to the Constellation test strategy, and changes to acquisition strategy. While some of these other issues are linked to cost and funding issues, the GAO report isn’t blaming all of Constellation’s tribulations on “funding shortfalls”, as Gordon put it.
(A tangent: the Orlando Sentinel reported late Thursday that while the Ares 1 first stage motor test generated less vibration than expected, claims that it eliminated thrust oscillation as a technical concern were “overstated”.)
The GAO report’s recommendation isn’t for additional funding but the development of a sound business case “supported by firm requirements, mature technologies, a preliminary design, a realistic cost estimate, and sufficient funding and time” before the program proceeds into the implementation phase. (Assuming, of course, that it does survive the current review.) That recommendation is accepted by NASA in a letter from new deputy administrator Lori Garver, who states that the agency is working towards developing that business case.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 September 25 at 7:34 am ET The discovery officially announced yesterday of more, and more widespread, water on the lunar surface has potential implications on space exploration policy: does it improve the case for the US—or someone else—to send people to the Moon? It’s a question addressed in a couple of pieces in The Times of London and The Independent, both of whom play up the potential for a new race to the Moon.
“This information could prove highly influential,” Howard McCurdy tells The Times, noting that it “increases the case” for a return to the Moon in a fiscally constrained time. The Independent gets a bit more hyperbolic, arguing that because India was involved in the discovery, it will force China to “intensify their efforts” in lunar exploration. “But what if the Chinese – or the Indians, or anyone else – goes ahead with an attempt to establish the first true lunar base? Will the US, the nation which planted its flag there, really stand by and let that happen without becoming involved itself?” The Independent even goes so far as to question the timing of yesterday’s announcement: “Do we really think the timing is a coincidence – of a Nasa announcement about lunar water which implies that establishing a Moon base might be more feasible than we thought in the past?” The folks at Science, who published the findings, might disagree.
Overall, it’s hard to see this discovery of water as a reason in and of itself for humans to go to the Moon. However, from the standpoint of making a human presence there potentially easier and less expensive, it may improve the odds of justifying other reasons to return to the Moon—if advocates can put together a compelling case.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 September 24 at 7:21 am ET That’s part of a quote from a member of Congress who met with NASA administrator Charles Bolden Wednesday and came away with that sense of uncertainty about the future of NASA’s human spaceflight program. “I left the meeting unconvinced that there is a guiding vision for the future of manned spaceflight in the United States,” Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL) told the Orlando Sentinel. “I don’t mean to imply that he [Bolden] is being evasive; I just don’t think he knows.” That uncertainty, though, isn’t necessarily surprising: the administration is likely still evaluating options, and while Bolden can make suggestions and recommendations, the decision presumably isn’t his to make.
The report also claims that Bolden, perhaps stung by the pushback against the Augustine committee options from members of Congress last week, is considering one alternative to keep Ares 1 as a “technology demonstrator” to support later development of the larger Ares 5. How exactly that would work—including what alternative launch options would be developed and how much such a scenario would cost—aren’t specified, although one unnamed NASA official attending the meeting said it was based on the “fantasy” that the agency would get a $3-billion-a-year increase.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 September 23 at 7:25 am ET An editorial in today’s Orlando Sentinel discusses the current state of Space Florida, the state space development agency. For those who missed the events last week, a search committee picked former NASA deputy administrator Shana Dale as the agency’s new president, a decision that caused consternation among some Space Coast officials, who backed interim president Frank DiBello, a local businessman with a long record in the aerospace industry. Then, just before the full Space Florida board was scheduled to make a final decision on the job, Dale took herself out of the running for the job. The board then voted to name DiBello the permanent president.
Happy ending? Well, not exactly, in the eyes of the Sentinel. Citing “lackluster results” during the tenure of previous agency president Steve Kohler, “the recent bungling by some board members in choosing a new president raises nagging doubts about whether the agency is finally on track,” the Sentinel argues. “It’s a good argument for legislators to continue to keep a close eye on Space Florida.” The editorial is also keeping a wary eye on DiBello, noting that Space Florida “has not yet announced any major accomplishments during his interim leadership.” What they’re looking for is Space Florida to bring business, and jobs, to the Space Coast to help offset the losses expected when the shuttle is retired, be that in 2011 or later.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 September 22 at 7:43 pm ET Many space advocates complain about the lack of attention NASA gets in Congress or elsewhere in politics. Well, they should check out the Houston City Council, where two councilmen are arguing about who’s the bigger NASA supporter, according to KTRK-TV. An at-large council member, Peter Brown, sent around a memo to the mayor and other council members, asking for a resolution that “acknowledges the economic benefit of NASA” to the city. Seems harmless enough, right?
That earned a sharp rebuke from another council member, Mike Sullivan, whose district includes the Johnson Space Center. “Please do NOT act on Peter Brown’s email to you regarding NASA and writing a resolution,” he wrote in an email obtained by the station. “NASA is in my council district, and I am absolutely all over this issue. Brown is not in the loop, has no idea what is going on behind the scenes, who is involved already, and what our strategy is.” Sullivan later said that he felt he was the “point man” on the issue on the city council, and saw Brown as an interloper.
While space agency supporters might appreciate his passion, the sad part about all of this that, in the end, whether or not the Houston City Council passes a resolution in support of NASA will have effectively zero impact on the debate about the agency’s future plans and funding in Washington.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 September 20 at 5:03 pm ET NASA astronaut Jose Hernandez, back on Earth after competing the STS-128 shuttle mission to the ISS earlier this month, is contemplating his future, a Stockton (Calif.) Record article today notes. He tells his hometown paper that he hopes to get assigned “to a space mission aboard a Russian aircraft”, which is likely the paper garbling a desire tto go to the ISS on a Soyuz mission. The paper adds something interesting, though: “He also is contemplating a political career to represent the Stockton area in Congress.”
While it’s not clear how far off his political career might be, he’s gotten involved in one hot-button issue recently. After landing, Hernandez told Mexican television he thought that undocumented workers in the US should be granted legal status: a rare public stance on a political issue by an active astronaut. “I work for the US government, but as an individual I have a right to my personal opinions,” he told a Mexican television show after his comments generated a minor controversy, as the Los Angeles Times reported.
|
|
